Ciolino v. Dzurenda

District Court, D. Nevada·Decided October 9, 2019·No. 2:19-cv-00520·Unknown

Opinion

COUNSEUPAR HES UP □□ □□□□

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT GOURT| OCT -9 2:3 2 DISTRICT OF NEVAD CLERK US DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 BY: a DEPUTY 4 5 || INRE: HCV PRISON LITIGATION Master File No. 6 3:19-cv-00577-MMD-CBC 7 || This document related to: PRE-TRIAL ORDER # 1: 8 Initial Case Conference 9 || ALL CASES 10 11 12 The lawsuits identified in Attachment “1” are pending before this court and have 13 || been assigned to the Honorable Miranda M. Du and the undersigned Magistrate Judge. 14 || Each case was originally filed by a pro se plaintiff who asserts a claim against 15 employees of the Nevada Department of Corrections (“NDOC’”) for violating their Eighth 16 Amendment Rights to be free from cruel and unusual punish based on the failure to treat 17 ig their Hepatitis-C (“HCV”) while in the NDOC’s custody. Each plaintiff asserts various past

19 and current NDOC employees denied them treatment for their HCV because the severity 20 || of their illness did not meet the protocols mandated by the NDOC policy proscribed for 21 || the treatment of HCV known as “Medical Directive 219.” (Hereinafter “MD 219”). In each 22 || case, the plaintiff claims that but-for the treatment protocols defined by MD 219, they 23 would have received treatment under the current medical standard of care for the 24 treatment of HCV. Finally, due the NDOC’s failure to treat their HCV, each plaintiff 25 asserts that they have, or will, develop various serious medical conditions — including, 7 but not limited to, cirrhosis of the liver and/or liver cancer. 28

1 Although the plaintiffs are housed at various NDOC facilities across Nevada and 2 || their claims are alleged against many different current and former NDOC employees, 3 each case requires discovery, and ultimately adjudication, of one core issue: whether the treatment protocols for HCV established by MD 219, (in both its current and past iterations), are constitutional. In other words, in each case, a primary question that must

7 be litigated is whether the NDOC adopted, implemented and applied an improper g || medical policy establishing the treatment protocols for inmates diagnosed with HCV. 9 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a) and LR 42-1(b), where actions before the court 10 || involve “a common question of law or fact” the court may consolidate the actions, in i whole or in part. This rule affords courts “broad discretion” to consolidate cases pending in the same district either on a motion by a party or sua sponte. In re Adams Apple, Inc.,

829 F.2d 1484, 1487 (9th Cir. 1987). In deciding whether consolidation is appropriate, 15 || the Court considers several factors including “judicial economy, whether consolidation 16 || would expedite resolution of the case, whether separate cases may yield inconsistent 17 || results, and the potential prejudice to a party opposing consolidation.” First Mercury Ins. Co. v. SQI, Inc., 2014 WL 496685, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 6, 2014) (citing 8 Moore's Federal Practice—Civil § 42.10[4—5)). □ Based on the foregoing, the court ORDERS the following:

7 1. Pretrial Consolidation. Having considered the above factors, this Court 93 || concludes that consolidation of the cases identified in Attachment “1” is appropriate for 24 || the purpose of discovery and pretrial matters related to the issues regarding the 25 || adoption, implementation, amendment, and appropriateness of MD 219 (in all its 26 iterations) and the treatment protocols established by the policy for inmates diagnosed with HCV. (Referred to herein as “HCV Consolidated Issues”). This order does not

1 || constitute a determination that these actions should be consolidated for trial, nor does it 2 || have the effect of making any entity a party to an action in which it has not been joined 3 and served in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 4 b. Master Docket and Case Caption. The court orders the clerk to 5 open and maintain a master docket and case file under the style “IN RE: HCV PRISON

7 LITIGATION,” master file number 3:19-cv-00577-MMD-CBC to be used for all filings for g || the lead case related to the HCV Consolidated Issues. All orders, pleadings, motions 9 || and other documents will, when filed and docketed in the master file, be deemed filed 10 || and docketed in each other case. Finally, all orders, pleadings, motions, and other i documents shall use the following caption: 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 14 15 16 IN RE: HCV PRISON LITIGATION Master File No. 17 3:19-cv-00577-MMD-CBC 18 || This document relates to: 19 [“All Actions” or if the document [Title of Document] 209 || relates to less than all of the consolidated cases, specify by title 21 || and case number the individual applicable case(s) the document is 22 || related to] 23 24 25 When a document filed pertains to all actions, the phrase “All Actions” shall appear 47 || immediately after the phrase “This document pertains to:”. When a document pertains 28 || only some, not all, of the actions, the document shall list, immediately after the phrase,

1 || “This document relates to:”, the title and case number for each individual action to which 2 || the document applies. 3 Cc. Later Filed Cases. The terms of this order related to the consolidation for purposes of discovery and pretrial matters in cases that involve claims by an incarcerated plaintiff against any past or current NDOC employees related to the

7 denial of treatment for HCV shall apply to actions later instituted in, removed to, or g || transferred to this court, if and only if, those cases are assigned specifically to the 9 || Honorable Miranda M. Du and the undersigned magistrate judge and upon entry of a 10 separate order by the court. i 2. Initial Conference. The Court will conduct an initial conference on Monday, October 21, 2019 at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 1, Bruce R. Thompson United States

Courthouse and Federal Building, 400 South Virginia Street, Reno, Nevada.

15 a. Attendance. To minimize costs and facilitate a manageable 16 || conference, the parties will not attend this conference but shall be represented at the 17 || conference by their counsel or the Hep C liaison counsel, Adam Hosmer-Henner and 18 Margaret A. Mcletchie, unless the party is proceeding pro se and is out of custody. 19 b. Purposes; Agenda. The conference will be held for the purposes specified in Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 and will be subject to the sanctions prescribed in Rule

16(f). The agenda for the initial conference is attached hereto at Attachment “2”. Counsel 3 || are encouraged to advise the Court as soon as possible of any items that should be 24 || added to the agenda. 25 C. Preparations for Conference. Before the conference, counsel shall 26 confer and seek consensus to the extent possible with respect to the items on the agenda, including a proposed discovery and a suggested schedule for the amendment

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Ciolino v. Dzurenda, (D. Nev. 2019).

Ciolino v. Dzurenda (Ciolino v. Dzurenda) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related